Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:32, 7 May 2012

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

Israel C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NGO Monitor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 40 days

Activities and Reception

If everyone is ok with the text as it currently stand for the lead and the funding section (apart from the location stuff which we can return to when the collaborative discussion is complete) I plan to move on to make some changes to both the activities and reception sections. My plan for the activities section is to slim it down a bit and convert it into a more narrative form in order to avoid the list format that currently prevails through both sections. Do either of you have a view on what MUST stay in this section, what you think needs to be ditched and what you are indifferent about?

Re: the Reception section, I think this would also benefit from being slimmed down and from avoiding the list format. I also wonder whether it would be better to change the section to 'Criticism' and move the positive comments to the intro of the activities section (I would also prefer to drop the last one completely as it doesn't really say much at all). Having a section for criticism seems to be the standard format used in most of the similar articles I have looked at (just going through those NGOs mentioned on the page, e.g. Oxfam, B'Tselem, Amnesty, HRW) although I'm not sure whether that format is policy based. Is there a particular reason for having a section on 'Reception' in general in this article? Also, what do you think the criteria should be for including criticisms (regardless of the section title)? At the moment the section contains quite a bit of repetition - would it be better to consolidate those criticisms that agree with each other into single sentences that can then cite the various organisations? Is Ittijah a notable organisation? Also, some of the criticisms involve responses to claims by NGOM mentioned in the activities section - should these be moved up there and reduced to brief responses or is it better to have the claims and responses in separate specialised sections?

Lots of questions :-) BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

i think the easiest way to do it is to make changes and present it here (rather than on the article page itself). then, after any discussion and consensus, you/we can move it to the article page. i will give other comments (answers to your questions) a bit later. Soosim (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm back editing and am keen on getting started on these sections, so any steering you could give me on the rough format of the sections would be appreciated as I'll then have a framework to work within.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

as i said - the best way to do it is to put your thoughts, changes, ideas, here on this page. discuss it first, and then, we can update the article itself. Soosim (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You also said you would give other comments/answers to my questions 'a bit later' :-). There doesn't seem to be any point wasting time flying blind if we can work out some basics in advance. Minimally, before moving stuff around I'd like to know what you think about my questions re: the section structure in general.BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Karp

Karp was Deputy AG more than 20 years before she made her comment on NGOM. She is currently a board member of an NIF organ, which has been the target of criticism by NGOM. I don't know for certain that she made her comment as an NIF functionary (thought the context strongly suggests so), but I know for certain she did not make it in any relationship to her role as DAG, which is why it is misleading to use that ancient title which has no relationship to the current criticism. It seems to serve only as a peacock term to give this comment more weight than it actually deserves. Jeff Song (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We can and should clarify that she has both roles.

There is a larger question at stake as well: I am disturbed that the entire section has been removed, including striking the questions about the credibility of NGOM, which has been questioned by numerous individuals with significant standing.

Just because NGOM's advocates are active on this site, doesn't give them the right to sweep this question under the rug. --Perplexed566 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The description used by the source cited is "Yehudit Karp is the former Deputy Attorney General of Israel and a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund". We can follow the source and say something similar. Obviously her NIF role has to be mentioned. Perhaps the fact that it wasn't mentioned was why Soosim removed the information. There's no policy based reason to exclude information from this source from the article so I think it's just a case of agreeing what to include. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

we could do that (include the description as provided in the source), or not include any title. Jeff Song (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

and when i did as suggested above ("we can follow the source and say something similar"), perplexed has a problem with it. i think my edit was quite NPOV and yours to be POV..... alas, this is the issue. comments? Soosim (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The description as used by the source is "Yehudit Karp is the former Deputy Attorney General of Israel and a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund." Why reverse it? --Perplexed566 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

and according to this article in haaretz, (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/former-official-bemoans-government-s-disregard-of-supreme-court-1.353406) karp also works closely with other organizations of note: "The details in the new letter were prepared with assistance from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Yesh Din human rights organization and the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights."

Elliott Abrams

It seems to me that this organization's affiliation with Elliott Abrams is a legitimate question relating to its credibility. Abrams was found guilty of misleading Congress in the Iran-Contra Affair. This organization claims to be about transparency and truthfulness. Why wouldn't the fact that 1 (out of 12) of its International Advisory Board members has a record on this issue be included in the article? --Perplexed566 (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that would be guilt by association, and original research, to boot. Jeff Song (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If he's a part of their leadership -- or if they choose to put him on their letterhead & feature him on their website under the "about" navigation tab -- it seems a relevant association. I'm not familiar with a policy reason it can't be included. And it's not original research. Court actions tend to be well documented.--Perplexed566 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The original research is your analysis, as described above (the reasoning along the lines of "he's a part of their leadership, he's a bad guy, so they are bad, by association, since they put him on their letterhead"). You need a reliable source to make that argument, not your personal synthesis of these data points into an argument. Jeff Song (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "bad" guy. I didn't say "bad" organization. These are verifiable, encyclopedic facts that are relevant to the credibility of the organization. Perplexed566 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

if you want to list all of the board members, and use wikilinks ] for those with their own pages, then fine. for sure. that is what ] are for... Soosim (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

By this logic it seems we should drop "a Professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University and a Senior Research Associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies as well as a columnist for The Jerusalem Post" after Gerald Steinberg is mentioned near the top, since it is original research. It seems to fit this definition of "original research." Is that your proposal? Perplexed566 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not quite the same thing - yours was WP:SYN - an attempt combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources (that NGOM's credibility is tainted by it's association with Abrams). The detailed description of Steinberg does not put forth any such argument. But, I have no objection to you trimming that description, and just leaving his name wikilinked- readers can click on the link and read about him in more detail. Once you do that (remove titles), we will of course do the same for Yehudith Karp. Jeff Song (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I take your point about synthesis being original research. Thank you for pointing me to that. It seems that the correct place to include the information would be by listing the individuals and relevant biographical information under "staff and structure" rather than under a "credibility" section. Does that seem right? Or are we actually intending to remove all bio information from the article? (And I do believe that the Steinberg bio is an attempt to imply standing and integrity, a conclusion not explicitly stated in the sources, and therefore could be challenged on these same grounds). --Perplexed566 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is not that you placed it under credibility, but that it is included at all, when no reliable sources that talk about NGOM contain this information. As I wrote above, while it is not quite the same issue, I would not object to removing Steinberg's bio details, either. Jeff Song (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

i think the founder of an org could have the very short in-sentence bio, but if not, not. (though many many do, all throughout wiki land) Soosim (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You've talked yourself into a circle. On the one hand, the problem regarding Abrams is that "no reliable sources that talk about NGOM contain this information." But if we take out Steinberg's bio information, "we will of course do the same for Yehudith Karp," no matter that the Karp information was contained in connection with NGOM in a reliable source. --Perplexed566 (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, pleas reread what I wrote: the cases are not the same. In the Elliot case, you were explicitly using a synthesized argument ("this organization's affiliation with Elliott Abrams is a legitimate question relating to its credibility.") In the Karp and Steinberg cases, we were (a) just using titles , not pushing for any argument and more importantly, (b) using those titles as used by reliable sources in the context of discussing NGOM. The Karp and Steinberg issue are similar, and we will treat them the same. The Elliot one is different. Jeff Song (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Steinberg references lend an air of authority and integrity to the organization. (What other relevance does "Professor" have?) In that manner it is a synthesizes argument, exactly the same as the Abrams question. --Perplexed566 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not the same. You explicitly made an argument - that Abrams misleading of congress in Iran-Contra reflects on NGOM's credibility. The use of Steinberg's (and Karp's) current titles make no such argument. Jeff Song (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. But I want to listen. Maybe you'll convince me? What is the value of the Steinberg bio information if not to suggest that NGOM uses methodology consistent with academic scholarship?--Perplexed566 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The value is to tell people a bit about who he is and what he does, just like we describe critic Uriel Heilman as a "Managing Editor for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) and a senior reporter for the Jerusalem Post", or critic David Newman as "a professor of political geography at Ben-Gurion University" and Karp as "a member of the International Council of the New Israel Fund and a former Deputy Attorney General of Israel". None of these imply that David Newman used methodology consistent with academic scholarship when he criticized NGOM, or that Karp's criticism has anything to do with legal claims related to her work as a deputy AG years ago. And as I have repeatedly written, if you find that value to be unimportant, we can remove it. But we will do so consistently. Jeff Song (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

jeff - you are referring to the steinberg info, not the abrams info, right? and if so, i agree. it doesn't lend anything except a brief idea of who the person is. almost every wiki page does that. not sure why it is an issue here (other than perplexed saying that it makes steinberg look better than he is?) Soosim (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Jeff Song (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Obscured donors

This edit removes significant information. Soosim, who removed the quote, argues that "the summary i put in yesterday very accurately describes what the article is about." I encourage Soosim to re-read the article with care. The article describes, at length, NGOM's efforts to obscure who its donors are, including multiple tactics.

Please take a look at the Haaretz quote (removed by Soosim) here, and opine as to whether the current text appropriately and accurately conveys this information. Those who can't read Hebrew can find excerpts translated here --Perplexed566 (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

At the very least we should say that the bulk of their funds come from abroad, mainly the US, based on the Haaretz article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that information can and should be added (without the polemics of "efforts to obscure..." etc...). Jeff Song (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's remove all the polemics from NGO Monitor from this article and the rest of Misplaced Pages before we worry about this Haaretz article. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. This article is about NGOM, and is the place for people to learn what its positions are, properly attributed to NGOM. Have you read the Ha'aretz article?Jeff Song (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the Haaretz article (or at least the google translate version....I'm not referring to the Wiki article). What I'm referring to is polemics in this article (and many others) like

• NGO Monitor also states that B'Tselem, an NGO that calls itself "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories", has employed "abusive and demonizing rhetoric designed to elicit political support for Palestinians"

NGO Monitor are quite keen on polemics and there is a quite a lot of it quoted verbatim here and in other articles. So, I'm not really concerned about saying that Haaretz reported that NGO Monitor obscured the source of their funding. It's an RS doing investigative reporting. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The link you provided is to the Hebrew version, which I assume you did not read. Relying on Google translate for including polemic and contentious statements in an encyclopedia article is dubious at best. To do so in a topic areas covered by ArbCom sanctions is practically asking for trouble - is that what you want? As a case in point, the translation does not use the word "obscure" at all. Jeff Song (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article is -- העמותה שעוקבת אחר ארגוני השמאל לא רוצה שתדעו מי תורם לה -- "The organization that tracks left-wing groups doesn't want you to know who its donors are." That translation is my own. We don't have to use the word "obscured" (and I did not do so originally here), but "obscured" is not a wrong description of what's in the article. And I have read the entire article in the original. Should we quote the title of the article (and not any paraphrase) along with the quote Soosim removed? --Perplexed566 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Titles are often the work of an editor, not the author, so it is bad practice to rely on them. It's hard for me to say what should be done in this case, with the source only in Hebrew. Can we find a reliable source in English that discusses this issue? (if we can't, it's a pretty good indoictaion that the material is not worthy of inclusion in the English Misplaced Pages). Jeff Song (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

what i find themost interesting is that the article (looks to be like 3-4 pages in the hebrew print edition) never made it to the english press, not even haaretz's own english paper or website. that might be telling as for it being an issue or a non-issue. Soosim (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Two questions/comments: 1) This article is about an Israeli NGO. It stands to reason that the most credible information would be found in Hebrew. Whether Haaretz choose to translate this article tells us absolutely nothing about the validity and reliability of this article. Is there a standard other than validity or reliability that you are seeking to apply? 2) Can you point me to a wikipedia policy that questions the reliability of a title in a source by a News Organization?--Perplexed566 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue in not reliability but notability and undue weight. I have no doubt that Haaretz is reliable, but if no English language reliable source published this information, this is a good indication that it is not notable enough for the English Misplaced Pages, and including it would violate WP:UNDUE. A secondary issue is the use of contentious statements, without a way for non-Hebrew readers to reliably validate that the article actually makes those statements. I wrote earlier, I have no problem including the factual material (most of the donations come from abroad), but POV statements that are in dispute (e.g: - did NGOM deliberately obscure its' donor using multiple tactic, or was it merely complying with the letter Israeli law regarding reporting) need better sources. Relying on Google translate for something like this is not sufficient. Jeff Song (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To refocus the conversation, on what grounds (if any) should we exclude the following quote, published by Haaretz - a News Organization - in the news section (not opinion) of the newspaper: "An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." If there are no policy grounds, then we should re-instate this quote. --Perplexed566 (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

ok, how about my original with the added above:

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), An examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

the article already includes the latter part of this text, which is more than sufficient. The first sentences uses POV terms while relying on your personal translation of a source available only in Hebrew, and that's not good enough. Jeff Song (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NONENG. A personal translation is good enough, as is a machine translation. The Haaretz source in Hebrew is good enough to include material here. These are not things that require your agreement or that you need to voice an opinion about. So, I suggest you move past that. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not aware that wikipedia works by consensus, and that the onus is on those wishing to add material to the article to get consensus for such inclusion. Such consensus does not exist in this case, so my agreement, at least at this point in time, seems quite important (Your uncivil tone is unlikely to persuade me to agree to your request, BTW) . The crucial issue in not translation, but , as noted above , undue weight, as evidenced by the fact that non non-English reliable source makes any mention of this. Jeff Song (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, your argument seems to essentially be that since there is no (known) English source, then using a Hebrew source would be allocating undue weight. If that was a valid argument, then non-English sources couldn't be used since that would create undue weight. However, WP:NONENG specifically says that using non-English sources is also OK, so I don't think your argument is very viable. --Dailycare (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My argument is that there is no significant coverage of this, as evidenced by the existence of a single source, which is in Hebrew, which means that it woudl be undue weight to dedicate as much space as P566 wants us to. What is currently in the article seems more than sufficient. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Jeff Song (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeff, there is no reason to persuade you since you have not raised any issues that are relevant to whether the material can be included. Arguments have to be valid with respect to policy to be considered part of a consensus. The language issue is not relevant. The weight issue is plain wrong. It's not reasonable to argue for exclusion on the basis that the material about an Israeli organization was only published in a lengthy investigative report in a major Israeli newspaper's magazine published in Israel using the main language of that country. It's important in this topic area to ignore editors who raise invalid concerns or else nothing would ever get done. I am beginning to find your approach here inconsistent with policy and the discretionary sanctions. That isn't good. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You say I "have not raised any issues that are relevant to whether the material can be included", and then proceed to address the issues which I have raised - namely the lack of significant coverage of this, which violates WP:UNDUE. You may disagree with me, and you may think the scant coverage is enough to satisfy the burden placed by WP:UNDUE , but to claim that I have not raised policy-based arguments against inclusion is wrong, and misrepresents what I have done. Very recently, it was found that misrepresenting other editors' actions and positions is a topic-ban-able offense. And you have the gall to find my actions inconsistent with discretionary sanctions ?! I have a good mind to take you to AE right now, but I'll give you another chance to step back and reconsider your behavior here. Jeff Song (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "scant coverage" would apply to WP:UNDUE especially given that there is no majority/minority view here. Nobody has said that NGOM didn't try to avoid revealing who one of their donors was. NGOM even tweeted about the article, but it was not a denial of the news story. (Finally, I put "scant" in quotes, because I think a feature story in one of Israel's most prominent newspapers is not "scant.") --Perplexed566 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the proposal made above by Soosim (but unsigned) is viable. --Perplexed566 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

very strange - i sign all my comments: Soosim (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Back in January I wanted to add something to the article by way of challenge to the report of NGOM's statement that they receive no governmental support. Given that JAI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation I thought this should be mentioned in the context of NGOM's claim. However, since no media outlet had made that point in the context of NGOM's finances it was concluded that adding this challenge in would count as synthesis. Since the following description of the JAI has now appeared in a report on NGOM's finances, is it worth adding something along these lines to the article? 'The Jewish Agency, which transferred the donation to NGO Monitor, is a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status.' (http://972mag.com/questions-regarding-foreign-influence-transparency-of-ngo-monitor/35854/) The question isn't entirely straightforward. Firstly, I don't know whether +972 magazine is considered a reliable source; secondly, the description of the JAI is not presented as a challenge to NGOM's claim but simply as a fact about one of NGOM's donors; thirdly, the point +972 are making is that, despite the money coming from JAI there are donors on the other side that are the ultimate sources. Now, assuming that +972 is a legit source for the moment, it seems to me to be enough that a reliable source characterises one of NGOM's donors as quasi-governmental in the context of a discussion of NGOM's finances for this to be included in partial response to NGOM's claim about receiving no government support. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BothHandsBlack (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

972 is really a blog written by journalists. NGOM gets no gov't support as in no money from the israeli or american gov't. money might be channeled from private donors to JAFI or elsewhere, but it is not gov't money. however, go find RS about all that.... Soosim (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my questions. Is 972 considered a reliable source or not? As for the donors, we don't actually know who they are. What matters is that a source states that NGOM receives funding from a 'quasi-governmental source' whilst NGOM claims to receive no support from governmental sources. That seems worth mentioning if the source is reliable. Is it?BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry, will try again: i think they are two separate statements. a) ngo monitor says it receives no gov't funding; b) 972's joe smith says that they received a donation from a "quasi-gov't" source. in my opinion, using "quasi" to say "gov't" doesn't work. use it with the qualifiers, i suppose. will have to see it and review it. Soosim (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Soosim - that last edit looks deliberately disruptive in the light of your comments on the talkpage. I tried to deal with the issue here to gain some consensus before proceeding, you didn't object here to the issues I raised and certainly did not raise here the issues you then used to revert my edit. If you have grounds for this removal then you need to discuss them here. That is what the talkpage is for. I also note that I have previously sought consensus from you before moving forward (on the subject of restructuring various sections) and you have refused to engage on the talkpage. You are simply wasting my time if you will not actually discuss things here first and insist that I put together edits which you will then just remove. Lets have the discussion where its meant to be had. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the specific issue at hand, the point is the 'quasi-governmental' nature of JAFI and this is not dealt with anywhere in the funding section. This point clearly needs to be placed in proximity to the claims about a lack of governmental support if they are to be dealt with at all. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

sorry, again. not my intention. you only talked about the 'quasi' part, but you added more. why not add the quasi part right where the other jafi sentence is? doesn't that make more sense? i didn't know you would do it differently. try something like this:

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (deemed a "quasi-governmental agency by +972's Noam Shazeif) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

I added in the extra, slightly redundant material, so as not to misrepresent the source but would be happy with a more condensed version with no overlap with the later material. But however it is phrased, it needs to be placed alongside NGOM's claim about their lack of government funding. The issue is that NGOM characerises the relationhip between their funding and government in one way whilst at least one source provides a description of their funding that has a different nuance re: (quasi)governmental involvement. This is a distinct point from the point about JAFI obscuring the sources of donations, so perhaps just put: "NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". This contains all the relevant data without duplicating material discussed later. The two elements could be connected in various ways so feel free to let me know which you think has the right force ('however' is most natural but might be read as implying too strong a challenge). BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

not quite sure you can put in but/however, etc with +972 as the 'counterweight'. maybe put it as a separate item? after all, it is not like ngo monitor received government funding from a non-quasi gov't agency - say, the ministry of education; and, it is not like they hid it, it does appear on their financial report, etc. - i guess the question is whether one thinks the jewish agency is a gov't agency or not. my guess is that jafi is a real ngo that was around before 1948, and never became part of the gov't. in fact, a quick search on the israeli gov't portal shows that they are not part of the gov't: http://www.gov.il/FirstGov/TopNavEng/EngSubjects/EngOrganizations/EngSOAjency why not find sources that differ and then use 972 as a back up? not sure. comments? Soosim (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The description of JAFI as 'quasi-governmental' is non-controversial and can be sourced to many, many RSes. I'm not sure how to find the archive for this page but I dug a bunch up back in January and just googling 'quasi-governmental jewish agency' gives links for the BBC, NYT, JPost, and Forward on the first page, and I'm pretty sure that the Guardian uses the same language as well. The fact that JAFI provided the government in waiting from which Israel formed itself as a state and is still given special powers by Israeli law to administer some areas of national policy means that calling it quasi-governmental just reflects these very clear current and past links to the Israeli state (it also receives considerable funding from the state). The significance of the +972 source is that it uses this description in the context of NGOM's funding. So, the situation is that many RS agree that JAFI is a quasi-governmental organisation and 972 notes this fact in relation to NGOM's funding. Now, this is clearly not the same thing as direct government funding but it provides useful information for the reader to qualify NGOM's own statement about the lack of support they receive from government. The only place I can really see this bit of data being usefully placed is in the context of NGOM's own claim. It doesn't contradict NGOM's claim but it does throw additional light on precisely how it should be understood. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

if that is how you feel, then maybe try putting it in the criticism section like evrything else? no article stops every sentence with the "however"s......not sure why this should be different. Soosim (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see your objection here. The funding section is not a section devoted to what NGOM says about their own funding and seems to be the right place for all views on funding. What NGOM say and what other people say are equally relevant. You seem to accept that the material is worth including in the article. Do you have any policy grounds or reliability grounds for not including it in the part of the article which currently reports what people say about the relation of NGOM's funding to government? I would be happy to avoid a 'however' linkage. The quasi-governmental stuff can just be added in a distinct sentence after the sentence reporting what NGOM say. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's not actually a criticism of NGOM; it's just information. There is nothing inherently wrong with receiving money from quasi-governmental bodies. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

maybe try something like: The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel (which some categorize as a "quasi-governmental agency"<972, bbc, whatever>) and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

No, that's not really to the point. You haven't, as yet, provided any argument against making the change I have suggested. If there are policy or source issues please bring them up but otherwise I'm going to make the change. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

but that is exactly the point. you want to say that ngo monitor says no gov't funding, but does receive funds from the jewish agency which, according to some/many, is a quasi-gov't agency. yes or no? do i not understand? it can't be that you are just trying to get 972 in as an RS for no reason? that would be silly. and it can't be that you want to balance a relatively true statement (no gov't funding) with a true statement once-removed (but they do get funding from jafi, which is quasi-governmental), that is just NPOV or UNDUE or whatever. i really don't see what is wrong will all of my suggestions for the last period of time. Soosim (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What you say in the first line is more or less correct. I think that if we are going to include NGOM's own statement on the relationship to government, which is clearly intended to emphasise their independence, then we should also note what else has been said about their relationship to government, which is that they receive funding from a quasi-governmental source. I do think that NGOM's true statement about their relationship with government should be placed alongside the point made by someone else. You say that this is 'just NPOV or UNDUE or whatever' but you'll really have to be more specific. Why is it POV to include a true statement from an external source on this topic alongside the view of true statement by NGOM but it is not POV to include their own statement in isolation? How can NGOM's statement on the subject have due weight but a further statement that adds depth and detail to this statement is undue? You need to explain precisely what your problem is or I'm going to have to assume that there is no real problem here. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

bhb - in one more attempt to try to explain, and perhaps arrive at yet another compromise (do please note, and i proud to 'ring my own bells' - i have not objected outright to anything you have said. i have only tried to modify it and reach a mutually acceptable position.)

if i understand correctly, you want (key part in bold):

NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA). Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

and i want (well, i really don't want, but am willing to let it in like this - it really should go in the 'criticism' section, no?) (and again, in bold):

NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA). Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.

According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

how about this:

NGO Monitor states that it was originally funded by the Wechsler Family Foundation when it was part of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). NGO Monitor says it receives no governmental support and is currently funded by private donors and foundations. According to a February 2012 article in Haaretz (Hebrew), an examination (of NGO Monitor's finances) reveals that "the organization sought to block the publication of one contributor and to get hundreds of thousands of Shekels from anonymous sources." The donations from the Jewish Agency for Israel and Matan originated with unnamed donors from outside Israel. Noam Sheizaf, in a discussion of NGOM's finances for +972 magazine, has described the Jewish Agency for Israel, one of NGOM's major donors, as "a quasi-governmental organization, operating in Israel under special status". Jason Edelstein, NGO Monitor's communications director, told Haaretz that "all of our financial information is fully disclosed with the Registrar for Non-Profits as required by law."

NGO Monitor receives significant financial support from Research + Evaluation = Promoting Organizational Responsibility and Transparency (REPORT) (formerly American Friends of NGO Monitor (AFNGOM)), which provided a grant of $500,000 in 2010. Current donors include Peter Simpson, Jerusalem; Jewish Federations of North America and United Jewish Appeal; Orion Foundation; The Jewish Agency for Israel; Matan; and The Center for Jewish Community Studies (part of JCPA). Financial reports for 2009 and 2010 are available on their website.

ok, what say ye?

I genuinely admire your repeated attempts to find a compromise by I am still entirely unclear on why you think a compromise is necessary. I almost wish that you did object outright because then it might be clearer to me what your objection to my edit is. I'll try and put my point across one more time, as it may be that just as I can't see your objection, I may not have been sufficiently clear on my reasons for the edit. So, in the funding section (before my edit) we have various pieces of data split over two paragraphs.

In the first paragraph we have: 1) the original source of funding for NGOM (Wechsler via JCPA); 2) a report of NGOM's statement that they receive no government funding; 3) details on current donors; 4) the fact that their financial reports are available on their website. The second paragraph then briefly deals with the minor controversy arising from the Haaretz piece: 1) the issue about the anonymity of donors; 2) NGOM's response that they are in full compliance with the law.

Now, as I see it, the claim that NGOM receive funding from an organisation that is commonly described as quasi-governmental should sit alongside NGOM's claim about their financial independence from government. Both sentences, while not contradicting each other, address the same general point - the relationship between NGOM's funding and bodies that are related to government. At present, there is only one place in the funding section that addresses the question of funding in relation to government and that is the point at which NGOM's own claim is reported, which is why I think a second sentence addressing the same issue should appear in the same place. Now, it seems like you want my suggested edit to go in the second paragraph, or with the second paragraph material moved into the first paragraph, because the controversy dealt with in the second paragraph is connected to JAFI and JAFI is the quasi-governmental body. Whilst this is true, the point of the second paragraph is not to group together all the stuff about JAFI (indeed, JAFI is not the only organisation mentioned here) but to report a specific controversy, and the edit I want to make is not really related to that controversy. Adding in the information about JAFI being considered quasi-governmental does not add anything to the reader's understanding of the already existing material on that controversy and it is no more relevant to that material than would be a report that JAFI has its HQ in Jerusalem. Either fact would add context but not anything relevant to the subject of that paragraph, because the way in which it is claimed that the donors are obscured does not have anything to do with JAFI's status as a 'quasi-governmental' body. That information is purely incidental and not integral.

I just want to make an edit that places two true and related pieces of information in relation to each other, such that we get: X states A about the relation of NGOM's funding to government; Y states B about the relation of NGOM's funding to government. Both statements are on the same topic so they belong together. But the point for me is to fill out the section of the article that deals with the relationship of funding to government and not just to get the statement about JAFI in somewhere, or anywhere, in the article because it will not be relevant elsewhere. It is only worth including, I think, at the place I have suggested. It certainly shouldn't go in the criticism section as it is not a criticism. And it doesn't belong with the material on the Haaretz report because it is not germane to the controversy reported there, even though the source for my edit happens to be talking more broadly about that controversy. The thing is, it is just a true piece of data that JAFI is very broadly considered to be quasi-governmental and this fact is not dependent on the context in which the claim happened to be made, so the significance of the piece of information really has nothing to do with the fact that JAFI is also discussed in terms of the ultimate anonymity of some donors. Long post but hopefully as clear as I can make it

:-) BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, can I ask that before we go on to discuss possible compromise locations any further, you make a post telling me why you don't want the sentence where I have suggested? It would be enormously helpful to me to know what the objection is, as I'll then know what to seek to avoid when we discuss compromises. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

from jimmy wales: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Soosim (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

But what viewpoint are you suggesting is in the minority? The description of JAFI as quasi-governmental is entirely mainstream and the fact that JAFI is an NGOM donor is just that, a fact that appears in JAFI's own documentation. +972 simply puts those two pieces of data together. It is not a minority view that one of NGOM's donors is a quasi-governmental body, it just so happens that those two facts have only been synthesised in one place, so all we are relying on +972 for is the synthesis. Even if +972 hadn't made this statement it would still be absolutely true to say that 'One of NGOM's biggest donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental organisation'. However, saying that without a source would be SYNTH despite it being true. Now that someone has said it, and it doesn't matter who, it is still true and is no longer SYNTH. To be clear, we are not relying on +972 for either the description as 'quasi-governmental' or for the fact that JAFI is a donor. Both of these points are about as reliable as they come. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, although I have previously accepted it, I'm still not entirely sure that it would be synth to mention this even without the +972 source, as synthesis explicitly involves reaching a new conclusion from two separate points. BothHandsBlack (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No if someone wrote something in his blog it doesn't mean its true that the reason we having WP:SPS.--Shrike (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you quite understand what true means. Either that or you haven't really read the preceding discussion properly. To make it simple for you: the statement is independently true. Its truth is not dependent on the +972 source. That JAFI is a donor for NGOM is true and is verified by their own documents. That JAFI is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body is true and is verified by the BBC, NYT, Guardian, JPost and Forward. That one of NGOM's donors is widely considered to be a quasi-governmental body follows by logical necessity from the two prior propositions (If X is an A and X is a B, at least some As are Bs; JAFI is a donor, Jafi is considered quasi-governmental, therefore at least some donors are considered quasi-governmental). If you still doubt that the statement is true I don't know what else I can say except, perhaps, that you should brush up on your basic critical thinking. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

interesting discussion - for argument's sake, though, BHB, it is not 'some', but 'one.' Soosim (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

'Some' is just the standard term for what lies between none and all in logic of this type. Either no As are B, all As are B, or some As are B. The logic doesn't change depending on the precise quantity assigned to 'some' so it works the same whether there is one or more donor, as long as it is less than all of them. BothHandsBlack (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

but by wiki RS and other standards of logic, it is only "one", and not "some", right? Soosim (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I don't want to put this chain of reasoning in the article, this is just the format for this type of reasoning. The ultimate conclusion in this case, i.e. what I would want to put in the article, would simply refer to the single donor. But you don't encode that singularity in the logic of the argument I present above (basically, 'some' in the argumentative framework does not indicate plurality but, rather, some indefinite quantity). BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We can only say what RS say, any extraperlation is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

But whether a source is reliable is context dependent. If what the source says is true and establishable as true independently, can it be rejected on the grounds that the source is not reliable? Any source must be reliable for a statement such as 2+2=4. Also, its not quite true to say that any extrapolation is OR. Basic calculation is allowed and logic is just calculation with propositions rather than numbers. The important thing about logical consequence is that it does not provide new information - it just clarifies information that is already there in the premises. What we have here are two statements that can both be impeccably sourced. The linkage between the statements can be made by simple logic. BUT we also have a source that makes that linkage. How can that source possibly be unreliable for that linkage? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is called synthasis, and that is aginast the rules. Yes, if a source is unreliable, anything it says is unreliable. If any RS make the saem claim we use the RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Under the section 'Context makes a difference' we are told, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made." I source can be reliable for some statements but unreliable for others. If the statement is true, how can it be unreliable for that statement? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We alsop use the best sources, so why not use the source that is RS?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Can I just ask, does anyone deny that it is in fact true that 'One of NGOM's major donors is widely described as a 'quasi-governmental body? BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, as I am not seeing a lot of soources saying this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you not seeing sources say? That JAFI is quasi-governmental? Google has the answers. That JAFI is an NGOM donor? NGOM says they are. Are you really disputing the truth of the consequence of putting these statements together? Truth is one thing, verifiability is another. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I assumked you were refering to the sources you were using here. I shall check out google.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mQcVmvrXJPwC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=AVUJLE9d8x&sig=RJmR8DdHv0LdkzO4TZnetDUKA0I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xYamT5mhNdOr8AP3-8iBBQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/15/israel-sharansky-zionism-jews-disapora http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=luHvqF1CsO8C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=JAFI+is+quasi-governmental&source=bl&ots=6LeIyMNXa7&sig=foWh5f5MwAHTPOmsf9UtMB9TtKk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=D4imT4PJJ8eM8gP2lNGCBQ&ved=0CGEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=JAFI%20is%20quasi-governmental&f=false

Yes it does seem to be widely described as Quasi governmental.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that all the elements in the statement are certainly reliable. In addition, the synthesis of the elements just follows logically. However, I'm willing to accept that I can't synthesise them myself as that would be WP:SYNTH. But since there is a source that logically synthesises the elements that can each be soundly sourced, even if that source itself isn't the best for making points that can't be backed up elsewhere (although it does come from a pro journalist who is published in RSs), it should be OK to lean on it for the synthesis. If many reliable sources call JAFI quasi-governmental then it is hard to see how +972 can be unreliable for that description. Equally, if NGOM says that JAFI is a donor, then it is hard to see how +972 can be unreliable for that true fact. Finally, if +972 puts the two together logically, then it is difficult to see how it can be unreliable for this logical synthesis. So, all three elements in what +972 says on this point, including the synthesis, seems reliable (to me at least :-)). BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthasis is never OK bwecaseu it cannot be verified, user Fandongo69 may not come to the same conclusion as you when reading the sources. That is why OR os not allowed, becasue it cannot be verified.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis by a WP editor is not allowed, sure. But the synthesis here is done by the source. It is also a basic logical calculation, so it is questionable whether it is really synthesis as no new conclusion arises (just as arithmetical synthesis does not lead to something new). I can't believe that anyone would disagree that 1) If JAFI is a donor, and 2) if JAFI is described as quasi-governmental, then 3) JAFI is a donor that is described as quasi-governmental. There just isn't room for disagreement here. If you accept the first two you simply cannot fail to accept the third without breaching the laws of logic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

i love this back and forth. while i don't think +972 is Rs, i did not object to you using it, BHB. my only concern was the placement of the info it says. so...is shrike and slater and anyone else wants to comment on my suggestions above (the one with the 3 possiblities, of which, two i think are acceptable), then please do. this will certainly go a long way to help BHB and me understand what others think. Soosim (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

L I am dubuoous aboout using a source that is not RS, if the information is accurate you wuld have thought an RS would have made the saem point. it looks at face values that statement 3 refelcts what the sorouces say. But I can see this being a constan battle ground becaseum it relises on a dogey source. My concearn is that however hard I try I am not fiding sources making this connection, it may be fringey.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the reason for a lack of corroboration in other sources is because it is a fringe view, it's just that this source is the only one in English that I know of that is concerned with NGOM's funding. We would only expect to find a connection between JAFI and NGOM's funding in the context of a discussion of NGOM's funding and the lack of other people making this connection is a factor of the lack of discussions on the broader topic rather than deriving from the connection itself being fringe. Given what I have said about the logic of the connection I also don't think that making such a connection could be identified as a fringe view. Anyone who uses the quasi-governmental description for JAFI would, presumably, use precisely the same description if they were writing about JAFI as a donor to NGOM as they do in writing about JAFI in any other context. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

One other point - how dodgy is the source? I agree that +972 in general is not the best but this particular writer is a professional published journalist who specialises in writing about Israeli politics. As such, isn't he still an acceptable source when writing on his area of expertise, even as a self-published source, as per WP:SPS? I know we need to take greater care when dealing with publications that lack editorial controls but, in this case the position he presents, that JAFI is a quasi-governmental body and that JAFI is an NGOM donor, doesn't seem remotely controversial. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

the real issue is that NGOM said they get no gov't funding, but did get one grant, as a pass-through, via JAFI. it is not gov't funding, but a pass through via a quasi-gov't agency. so, why not discuss this since i think this is the real issue, no? Soosim (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This would be more interesting, are there any RS that say that JAFI has been used as a conduit for governmetn funds?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Soosim means a pass through from government but that it channelled donations from unknown sources. This comes from the Haaretz article reffed in the +972 piece but it is only available in Hebrew. That is the topic of the second paragraph in the funding section. If I understand Soosim's comment correctly.BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I would like to discuss that in more detail but the source is in Hebrew and the only translation I've been able to access is garbage. But I don't think we can say that because it was a pass-through JAFI is not a donor; it's not an either/or issue. We still have to deal with the fact that one of their listed donors is (widely called) quasi-governmental as well as the fact that we don't actually know who their ultimate donors are. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

yes, as i understand it, it was a private person donor to NGOM via JAFI. and there is no source saying that all in one article. it is in bits and pieces in no fewer than 3 or 4 different places. and this is what one is trying to do with the 'no gov't funding' and 'quasi-gov't funding'. Soosim (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have no problem in bringing that material together (as long as the connection are logical and not based on supposition). What are the sources? I've struggled and struggled with the Haaretz piece so please tell me there is some alternative! BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Using WP:RS 972mag is not.--Shrike (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources can be used if they are by a specialist on the topic and the specific author in question arguably is such (professional journalist specialising in Israeli politics). In addition, WP:RS says, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context". Putting aside your concerns about +972, do you think there is any reason to doubt the reliability of the author for the three points in question? If so, what leads you to think he is unreliable for this statement? BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"three" points in question? i thought it was only one. Soosim (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The two points that are being 'synthesised', i.e. the description of JAFI as 'quasi-governmental' and the description of JAFI as a donor, plus the synthesis itself. So, one point overall but composed of three elements (or two elements and a relation between them). BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone still thinks that JAFI's quasi-governmental status is at all controversial, see http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article.aspx?id=259175 in which it is described as semi-governmental by an Israeli government minister!BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's Start Again ...

Ok. As per the suggestion made at the RS noticeboard, I have removed the comment sourced to +972 entirely. I have replaced it with a factual statement in Misplaced Pages's voice about the quasi-governmental status of JAFI. Whilst I was initially going to put in that JAFI 'is widely considered' to be quasi-governmental, when I checked the JPost source I found that it was full of comments by a current Israeli government minister repeatedly emphasising JAFI's special status in Israel and she calls JAFI a 'semi-governmental' agency. If the Israeli government assign this status to JAFI, and if this description is used by both reliable Israeli and international newspapers, I see no need to qualify the description as a claim or to state that 'some consider ...'. So, the new version of the sentence is simply a statement of fact and does not rely on any potentially problematic sources. Any problems with the wording? As to the possibility that this might be SYNTH, I have asked at the OR board and got no response. The uninvolved and experienced third-party at RS/N emphatically denied it would be SYNTH as no conclusion is reached that is not already present in the sources. Any problems on this? In order to keep things streamlined, if you have issues with the edit, please be crystal clear about whether they are to do with wording, sourcing, or claims of OR. Thanks. BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1. העמותה שעוקבת אחר ארגוני השמאל לא רוצה שתדעו מי תורם לה

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles